Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PERRY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12-cv-14439. (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20130703a88 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 02, 2013
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION SEAN F. COX, District Judge. On or around October 6, 2012, Shakira Perry on behalf of her son, Charles Devon King, Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint, requesting that this Court review the Commissioner of Social Security's decision holding that her son was not disabled and entitled to social security disability benefits. (Docket Entry No. 1.) This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk on October 10, 2012
More

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

On or around October 6, 2012, Shakira Perry on behalf of her son, Charles Devon King, Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint, requesting that this Court review the Commissioner of Social Security's decision holding that her son was not disabled and entitled to social security disability benefits. (Docket Entry No. 1.) This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk on October 10, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 2.) Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 9, 12.)

On May 31, 2013, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk filed his Report and Recommendation ("the R&R"), recommending that the Court DENY the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry No. 9], GRANT the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry No. 12], and AFFIRM the Commissioner's findings. (Docket Entry No. 13.)

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R.

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither party has filed any objections to the R&R.

The Court finds that the issues have been adequately presented in the parties' briefs and that oral argument would not significantly aid the decision making process. See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The Court therefore orders that the motion will be decided on the briefs.

The Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the May 31, 2013, R&R. For the reasons mentioned in the R&R, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry No. 9] is DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry No. 12] is GRANTED. The findings of the Commissioner are AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer